Originally posted by marc71178 If a bowler has a good economy rate and strike-rate, he must be doing something right.

Usually, but not invariably.

Can you please get your story right?

One minute you say the only way you can judge players is on statistics, now you say you can't.

You can select players on statistics alone. You can't just turn to a player and say "right, you averaged 17 in the last Test-series, with an economy-rate 2.6-an-over and a strike-rate of whatever that equates to (can't be bothered to work it out) but you didn't deserve any of those wickets and it was only poor batting that stopped you going for about 4-an-over, so we're going to drop you".
It just doesn't work like that.
However, the judgement of a bowler's ability is something different altogether. As I say, just because someone has been effective doesn't automatically make them good if you ask me. There is a pure and simple stat (or two) that you can judge batsmen's ability on. It doesn't work like that with bowlers. You can't make an accurate assesment of what an economy-rate "should" be, and the same with a strike-rate, because different deliveries are realistically unplayable to different batsmen. You can only look at the wickets that have been taken and ask "did that ball deserve that wicket?"

Originally posted by Top_Cat Worked for me.Yeah I never saw Syd Barnes do the same but then, I never saw him bowl either. Picking a parallel here?

No, because I've seen McGrath bowl. Not as much as some people have, but I've seen him bowl for an entire winter (summer to you Australians), and I'd expect someone who can do something to do it sometime during a season.

What makes a good bowler? The ability to get batsmen out does the trick, usually anyway.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what's the overall highest played level here? Call me arrogant, pig-headed or whatever but in my experience, those who have the most to say on this sort of thing have usually played church league cricket or lower. The basics are there for a reason but when you come up against decent batsmen, you need something a little extra to succeed. For most it's heart, for others t's innovation but for very few is it merely good technique.

Let me be blunt; there's no hard-and-fast method to allow you get wickets. Debate after debate can be had on the subject but when it comes time to bowl to a guy set on 80-odd on the flattest pitch you've ever seen, I'm afraid all the schooling and theory in the world won't help you.

Incidentally, I played for South Australian U/15's, 17's, 19's and was in the Australian U/17's and just missed the U/19's squad for reasons I won't bore you with (the general theme in the reasons are 'sustainable career') as an opening bowler.

The highest level I have played is English Club Second XI (and that for 2 games 2 seasons ago), which is sort of about equivalent to Adelaide Third Grade. About.
My regular level is Club Third (and Sunday, and Midweek) XI. I don't even usually do that well there, but I do have a seven-for to my name. And if I judge by my normal standards I deserved five of the wickets.
And it's perfectly true that you need to have done or tried to do something to understand how difficult it is to do it, but it's entirely another thing to advocate what needs to be done. Anyone who knows their cricket (and I consider I do) can do that.
Saying and doing something are entirely different things, and indeed I've often tried to express that; if accuracy was basic, most people who tried bowling would be Test-standard bowlers. However, if you've got the ability to do something all you need is what you describe as "the theory"; knowing what to do, and when.
It's a different thing criticising people for doing and not doing something and saying "I could do that".

Originally posted by marc71178 Come off it, he didn't deserve the wicket since the ball could easily have been hit by SRT.

It mightn't have been a realistically-unplayable delivery but it was a damn good one and certainly deserved the wicket. It couldn't have easily been hit at all. It was a slightly faulty shot but not a terrible one.

Originally posted by Richard It mightn't have been a realistically-unplayable delivery but it was a damn good one and certainly deserved the wicket. It couldn't have easily been hit at all. It was a slightly faulty shot but not a terrible one.

Forward defensive will stop any ball on the stumps.

I think that in future all wickets that are bowled shouldn't be counted because the batsman must have made a mistake in order to be out in such a manner.

I disagree, I remember Tudor's ball to Steve Waugh at the WACA last Ashes series and that was a very good one and I remember Tuffey bowling some quality balls from Tuffey in Hamilton last summer (winter you Poms) and they beat some of the better Indian batsmen and they were pitched on the stumps.

And I watched every ball of the Indian 1st innings as well.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

For me bowlers who fall away and have complicated run up and delievery jump wont be a good bowler.

Balaji and Best have actions that when they get close to the stumps, their actions take them away from the stumps.

For me I can never work out to how Best got to the level he has got to with his action. It isnt as though the West Indies have plenty of fast bowling guidence to help him iron out his flaws. If people like Michael Holding isnt working with him, then he should be instead saying what is wrong with his action in the commentaryy box.

For me bowlers who fall away and have complicated run up and delievery jump wont be a good bowler.

I'm sure guys like Colin Croft, Jeff Thomson and Geoff Lawson would beg to differ on this one. How about Wes Hall? He fell away but his action was magnificently athletic, he was accurate and he was Q-U-I-C-K.

Injury prone due to their actions they were; bad bowlers they most certainly were not.

Stuff like that should be discouraged only on the basis that injuries result in bowling in that manner but that should certainly be balanced with what works for the bowler. If they're bowling well because of the action, why fix it if it ain't broke? If they're bowling badly because they fall away, well that needs to be pointed out too. There's no hard-and-fast rule.

If people like Michael Holding isnt working with him, then he should be instead saying what is wrong with his action in the commentaryy box.

Michael Holding has been nothing short of generous to West Indian fast bowling since he retired. Maybe he's sick of being ignored. If there's one guy they should be listening to when it comes to technique, it's him. He was just supreme.

Yeah I think thats true action does not determine if the bowler is good. How about Mike Proctor, would any coach recommend to model a youngsters action on Proctor's, certainly not, but still he was one heck of a bowler.

And falling away actions, I have not seen much of Andy Roberts, but did he not fall away while delivering the ball. He was a pretty good bowler too

....And I can just see it...we are heading towards another best bowling action thread

Originally posted by marc71178 So how come the selectors don't do that then? How come they look at the player rather than pickig on stats?

They don't - if David Graveney hasn't watched a ball of a Test (it's not going to happen, but just hypothetically speaking) and he sees that someone has got match-figures of 7 for 69 from 30 overs, do you really think he's going to consider dropping him for the next match?

Bull - you can see how many runs a person has scored, but that means nothing since there's so many variables (dodgy umpire, freak dismissals, dropped catches etc.) that don't get shown in a number.

Also, how does an average of 60 tell you how good a batsman will be when he faces decent bowling?

That's all based on the notion that county bowling isn't "decent". Complete nonsense. It's of a lesser standard than international bowling, but the simple fact of the matter is that the rules of the game are the same.
Hence, logic suggests that someone who fails against "indecent" bowling is more likely to fail against "decent" bowling than someone who succeds against "indecent" bowling.
The argument that averages are likely to be inversed because the standard is raised is simply a logic-baffling one.
And for a batsman averaging 60 in First-Class-cricket, in this country - if only!
Incidentaly, tell me: how are viewers of the game better judges of the game than the game itself?

Originally posted by marc71178 Forward defensive will stop any ball on the stumps.

I think that in future all wickets that are bowled shouldn't be counted because the batsman must have made a mistake in order to be out in such a manner.

And that ball was on the stumps?
No, it was about two feet outside. It moved back onto the stumps on pitching. A similar ball dismissed your king at The Oval. He couldn't really be faulted either.
Still trying the overdone sarcasm?